via facsimile

Sektionschef Dr. Rudolf Wran
Bundesministerium für Unterricht
und kulturelle Angelegenheiten
Minoritenplatz 5
A-1014 Vienna, Austria

Re:  Bloch-Bauer Estate

Dear Dr. Wran:

 I apologize for writing again so soon after my last letter. Since I do not have any direct contact with Dr. Kremser, perhaps you can pass this letter on to him, so that he understands our legal position better.  I am aware that perhaps no one has studied the underlying documents as diligently as I have, and so I would like to make my "expertise" available to Dr. Kremser and the Beirat, so that potentially embarrassing mistakes can be avoided.

 All I know about Dr. Kremser's argument is what I have read in the newspapers, but I suspect that his concern is based on an issue which I discovered and resolved many months ago (even before I first contacted Dr. Lintl).  Section 711 ABGB provides

Wenn der Erblasser die Absicht, wozu er den Nachlaß bestimmt, zwar ausgedrückt, aber nicht zur Pflicht gemacht hat, so kann die bedachte Person nicht angehalten werden, den Nachlaß zu dieser Absicht zu verwenden.

In the annotations to this section, however, there appears a somewhat contradictory statement from a decision in 1987, that "Eine bestimmt ausgedrückte letzwillige Anordnung ist wirksam, wenn auch in die Form eines Wunsches oder eine Bitte gefaßt ist." 28.10.1987 EFSlg 54.134 - RZ 1988/21 - SZ 60/255.

 Without delving deeper into Austrian law, there are certainly two very obvious reasons why the exceptional holding of the 1987 decision has absolutely no bearing on the Bloch-Bauer case:

 1. First, in stark contrast to the 1987 case, the wishes of Adele Bloch-Bauer expressed in her will regarding the Klimt paintings are clearly non-binding on her heir Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer. In the 1987 case, the testator's will read as follows:

Ich ... bitte um folgende Durchführung meines letzten Willens nach meinem Tode:  Mein Haus mit Garten soll allein meine Tochter Bärbel B erhalten, jedoch mit der Bitte an sie, diesen Besitz zu erhalten, entweder für eine eigenes Kind von ihr, oder aber für eines meiner beiden Enkelkinder Hannes oder Karin.

The Court in 1987 found that the second "Bitte" was binding on the testator's daughter. The first reason for this finding was that the testator had used the same word ("Bitte") in two places where she clearly intended to give specific instructions for the disposition of her property.  "Zumindest nach der Gleichartigkeit der Wortwahl in den ersten beiden Absätzen der letztwilligen Verfügung besteht kein Zweifel, daß die von der Erblasserin an ihre Tochter Bärbel B gerichtete Bitte eine bestimmte Anordnung enthält."  The second reason for the ruling in 1987 is that the testator had attached specific directions to her bequest of the house.  "Hat der Erblasser jemandem einen Nachlaß unter einem Auftrag zugewendet, so ist dieser Auftrag als eine auflösende Bedingung anzusehen, daß durch die Nichterfüllung des Auftrages der Nachlaß verwirkt werden solle."

 In contrast, the will of Adele Bloch-Bauer contains much different language, which more clearly falls under the basic provision of section 711, rather than under the exception found in the 1987 case. First, in Section I of her will Adele names Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer as her "Universalerbe," without any further requests or directions attached to the bequest. Section II of the will names Gustav Bloch-Bauer and his descendants as alternate heirs if Ferdinand dies before Adele.

 In the first half of Section III of her will, Adele leaves sums of 50.000 Kc to two Viennese societies, and states unambiguously (no "Bitte") that her husband, as her heir, has to pay any taxes. ("Die Gebühren dieser Anfälle hat mein Ehegatte als mein Universalerbe zu tragen.") For this portion of her will, she uses the words "Ich hinterlasse," and states "Da ich überzeugt bin dass mein Ehegatte diese seine Verpflichtung voll erfüllen wird, hat jede Sicherstellung der Ansprüche dieser zwei Vereins zu entfallen."

 However, in the second half of section III of Adele's will, Adele uses much different language to make the request ("Bitte") that her spouse leave the 6 Klimt paintings to the Austrian Gallery after his death. "Meine zwei Porträts und die 4 Landschaften von Gustav Klimt bitte ich meinem Ehegatten nach seinem Tode, der Österr.Staatsgalerie in Wien ... zu hinterlassen." Note that she does not say that she leaves the paintings to the Austrian Gallery (ich hinterlasse), but that she asks her husband to do so (ich bitte ihm . . . zu hinterlassen).  This is in sharp contrast to the bequests to the two societies in the first part of Section III.

 In case there is any doubt that her request ("Bitte") to her husband was not in the nature of a legal obligation or bequest, one need only look at Section IV of the will.  This section provides that in the case Adele's brother-in-law or his descendants are her heirs (in other words, in the case that Ferdinand dies first, see Section II of the will), they are obligated to turn over the 6 Klimt paintings to the Austrian Gallery immediately after her death. "Für den Fall daß mein Schwager Dr. Gustav Bloch-Bauer bezw. seine Descendenz meine Erben werden, verpflichte ich ihm bezw. seine Descendenz . . . die 2 Porträts und 4 Landschaften von Gustav Klimt an die österr.Staatsgalerie in Wien . . . als Legat, gleich nach meinem Tode zu übergeben."

 So, in contrast to the 1987 case cited in the annotations to section 711 ABGB, the "Bitte" in Section III Adele Bloch-Bauer's will cannot be seen as a legal obligation placed on Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer.  When Adele wished to state an obligation, she used the words "Verpflichtung" and "verpflichte." When she wanted to require her husband to do something, she did so without using the word "bitte."  Manifestly, Adele did not intend to obligate her husband to donate the 6 Klimt paintings to the Austrian Gallery, but merely asked that he do so.  Therefore, section 711 itself, and not the exception found in the 1987 case, applies to the language in Adele's will, and the section concerning the Klimt paintings must be seen as not legally binding on Ferdinand.

 Notably, this is also how the will was seen by Gustav Bloch-Bauer at the time Adele's estate was administered: 

In 2. And 3. Absatz des III.Punktes stellt die Erblasserin an ihren Gatten verschiedene Bitten, die dieser getreul. zu erfüllen verspricht, wenn sie auch nicht den zwingenden Charakter einer testamentarischen Verfügung besitzen.

The Court administering the estate in 1926 apparently was of the same view.

 2.  Second, and perhaps even more important than the linguistic interpretation of Adele's will, is the fact that Adele did not own the 6 Klimt paintings.  Already in 1926, Gustav Bloch-Bauer did not include the Klimt paintings among Adele's property.  In the handwritten notation on side one of the Original Abschrift des Vermögensbekenntnisses it states,

Im eidestättigen vermögensbekenntnisse sind die Klimtbilder nicht angeführt.  Der Erbl. Witwer Herr Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer Großindustrieller in Wien I. Elisabethstrasse 18, vertreten durch Gustav Bloch-Bauer Rechtsanwalt in Wien I. Studenbastei Nr. 2 als Erbenmachthaber erklärt die Klimtbilder als sein Eigentum, erklärt jedoch andererseits in einer Eingabe, daß er die Bitten der Erblasserin gerteulich erfüllen werde, wenn sie auch nicht den zwingenden Charakter einer testamentarischen Verfügung besitzen.

 It does not appear that at the time of Adele's death, anyone claimed that she had owned the Klimt paintings, or that Ferdinand was legally bound by the wishes expressed in her will. The Bezirksgericht approved the disposition of her property as reflected in Gustav Bloch-Bauer's submission.  This is true even though the Austrian Gallery was notified of the proceedings concerning her will. ("Die Leitung der österreichsichen Staatsgalerie in Wien wird verständigt, daß die Erblasserin im Punkte III ihres Testaments dto Wien XIX.Jänner 1923 wörtlich nachstehende Verfügung getroffen hat.")

 It seems highly unlikely to me that Adele would have owned the six Klimt paintings as her separate property.  The paintings themselves were housed in the Bloch-Bauer Palais at Elisabethstraße 18, and thus were not held as separate property. (It should be noted that Adele did own 50% of the Palais, and that this portion was transferred to Ferdinand upon her death.)  Given what we know about the male-oriented society in which Adele lived, it seems almost inconceivable to me that in 1925 she would have been declared the sole owner of the six Klimt paintings.

 Most likely, the paintings were all bought by Ferdinand as gifts for Adele. The literature, although in many cases unreliable, seems to support this proposition.  For example, in Christian Nebehay's book, Gustav Klimt: Von der Zeichnung zum Bild, he writes on page 220, "Abschließend müssen wir noch des Grosindustriellen Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer gedenken, der Klimt zweimal den Auftrag gab, seine Frau Adele zu portraitieren."

 At this stage, almost 75 years after the death of Adele Bloch-Bauer, it seems to me very doubtful that the Austrian Gallery could ever prove that the 6 Klimt paintings belonged to Adele, and not Ferdinand. Absent such extraordinary proof, I think we are obligated to assume that the probate court's disposition of the property in 1926 was the correct one.

 The paintings belonged to Ferdinand, and not to Adele.  He promised to fulfill her wishes, but was not legally obligated to do so. Understandably, after all of his property was stolen from him, Ferdinand did not feel bound to make any donations of his property to Austria. He left everything to his three named heirs, who had the right to recover his property. Their lawyer gave up that right in 1948, in exchange for export permits for other paintings. In my view, under the new law there is no other reasonable outcome than a return of the paintings to the heirs of Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer.

   Very truly yours,

   E. Randol Schoenberg

cc:    Mrs. Maria Altmann

 Bundesministerin Elisabeth Gehrer

Home